I have come to know the Book of Mormon was translated by the gift and power of God by reading it, applying itís teachings, and asking God if it is true. Through applying itís teachings, I experienced the most profound change from wickedness to righteousness. When I asked God, He bore witness to me more powerful than mere dna tests that it is true.

Itís a familiar sentiment. But itís not one restricted to the Mormons - people who would loudly (and rightly!) deny that the Book of Mormon has any status as Scripture would say much the same about their own beliefs.

I suppose it is human nature to assign the penultimate status to your own belief.

When I first got saved in 1993, I found myself researching my own chosen belief in the context of the apologetic books (and later websites) of that time. jar, our friendly resident curmudgeon, educated me on how to be unbiased and more objective in my learning. I watch how our member Faith defends her beliefs stubbornly and determinedly, never allowing herself to be fully objective and unbiased, but I think this has to do with human nature.

Even today, I have a problem with 100% objectivity because it goes at odds with my belief which I hesitate to throw away in the name of objectivity.

PaulK writes:

...But why should they be taken any more seriously than this Mormon ?

I also have a problem assigning the same value to any belief apart from my own. I was always taught (and believed) that standing for something was better than falling for just anything (or nothing).

Edited by Phat, : added

Edited by Phat, : No reason given.

Chance as a real force is a myth. It has no basis in reality and no place in scientific inquiry. For science and philosophy to continue to advance in knowledge, chance must be demythologized once and for all. ĖRC Sproul"A lie can travel half way around the world while the truth is putting on its shoes." ĖMark Twain " ~"If that's not sufficient for you go soak your head."~FaithPaul was probably SO soaked in prayer nobody else has ever equaled him.~Faith :)

By that logic, it's better to stand for the "wrong" gods than to be unsure of which gods, if any, are real.

And you live by your credo. Your life is so based on evidence that you would stand forever...if necessary...waiting for the evidence and never choose to believe anything.

I had no fear that I would somehow choose the wrong god. In my belief there is only one of them anyway, so the decision is to basically either choose or not choose pending evidence. What your sentence should say is this:

By that logic, its better to choose than to wait for evidence.

Which, by the way, you long ago chose not to do.

Chance as a real force is a myth. It has no basis in reality and no place in scientific inquiry. For science and philosophy to continue to advance in knowledge, chance must be demythologized once and for all. ĖRC Sproul"A lie can travel half way around the world while the truth is putting on its shoes." ĖMark Twain " ~"If that's not sufficient for you go soak your head."~FaithPaul was probably SO soaked in prayer nobody else has ever equaled him.~Faith :)

The question is whether God cares whether or not we acknowledge her. You have gone on record as stating that she does not. I maintain that she does. I have no argument with tending to the least of these...that's standing for doing all that we can.

On a mental (and spiritual) health level, I am also arguing that we need to feel a connection with our Creator.

You, of course, will probably ask what you always ask...namely How would we know that we were communicating with God rather than indigestion or internal warm fuzzies. My response? We would simply have to go by belief and faith.

There has never been any evidence. That's what faith is all about.

And this answers the topic: A Mormon has no better knowledge than does a Christian or a Buddhist or an atheist. Most of the religious folks care...and need some sort of internal peace about who they are working for. The atheists need no such verification and don't even consider it.

It would be interesting to get a survey on the number of atheists feeding the homeless and sheltering them versus religious folk. One thing is sure...they wouldn't care WHO they were working for.

Chance as a real force is a myth. It has no basis in reality and no place in scientific inquiry. For science and philosophy to continue to advance in knowledge, chance must be demythologized once and for all. ĖRC Sproul"A lie can travel half way around the world while the truth is putting on its shoes." ĖMark Twain " ~"If that's not sufficient for you go soak your head."~FaithPaul was probably SO soaked in prayer nobody else has ever equaled him.~Faith :)

quote:It would be interesting to get a survey on the number of atheists feeding the homeless and sheltering them versus religious folk.

So atheists paying taxes to the government that is then used for programs that feed the homeless and sheltering them doesn't count?

It only counts if you have a dedicated program based upon your theist position? It only counts as an atheist helping someone if they help "in the name of atheism"?

Johns Hopkins Hospital was created specifically to have a hospital that wasn't affiliated with a church. Does that count?

RrhainThank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.Minds are like parachutes. Just because you've lost yours doesn't mean you can use mine.

So atheists paying taxes to the government that is then used for programs that feed the homeless and sheltering them doesn't count?

No. Checkbooks don't impress me.

It only counts if you have a dedicated program based upon your theist position? It only counts as an atheist helping someone if they help "in the name of atheism"?

No. It counts if the worker is doing work towards the general cause that I mentioned. Who they are doing it under is irrelevant.

Johns Hopkins Hospital was created specifically to have a hospital that wasn't affiliated with a church.

I did not know that. Interesting.

Does that count?

First we have to come to an agreement of how we could even gather such information. I'm just curious if the numbers of those doing for the least of these, jars charge, are consistent across all types of people.

Chance as a real force is a myth. It has no basis in reality and no place in scientific inquiry. For science and philosophy to continue to advance in knowledge, chance must be demythologized once and for all. ĖRC Sproul"A lie can travel half way around the world while the truth is putting on its shoes." ĖMark Twain " ~"If that's not sufficient for you go soak your head."~FaithPaul was probably SO soaked in prayer nobody else has ever equaled him.~Faith :)

I'm just curious if the numbers of those doing for the least of these, jars charge, are consistent across all types of people.

Paying taxes to support filling the general needs certainly meets any of my conditions. When we work together through taxes and other contributions to feed the hungry, protect the weak, clothe the naked, comfort the sorrowful, heal the sick and educate the children we are doing what Jesus told us to do. We are also doing what we should do regardless of any religious beliefs.

Based on that criteria, anyone who pays taxes is indirectly doing the "will of God".

In my opinion, there are too many loopholes.

Since the rich pay most of the taxes, are they doing the will of God through their taxes?

Chance as a real force is a myth. It has no basis in reality and no place in scientific inquiry. For science and philosophy to continue to advance in knowledge, chance must be demythologized once and for all. ĖRC Sproul"A lie can travel half way around the world while the truth is putting on its shoes." ĖMark Twain " ~"If that's not sufficient for you go soak your head."~FaithPaul was probably SO soaked in prayer nobody else has ever equaled him.~Faith :)

Your life is so based on evidence that you would stand forever...if necessary...waiting for the evidence and never choose to believe anything.

It isn't about evidence. It's about probability. The probability is that you will "choose" the god that was presented to you by your culture. There is no guarantee that that god has any relation to "the real God", if such a thing even exists. If you were really making a choice, you'd examine the other possibilities before jumping on the first one.

Phat writes:

In my belief there is only one of them anyway, so the decision is to basically either choose or not choose....

That's a convenient and comforting doctrine that you've concocted for yourself. Can you bring yourself to actually swallow it or are you just whistling in the dark?

Phat writes:

What your sentence should say is this: By that logic, its better to choose than to wait for evidence.

No.

The logic of any-choice-is-better-than-no-choice is the logic of leaping without looking.

An honest discussion is more of a peer review than a pep rally. My toughest critics here are the people who agree with me. -- ringo

Since the rich pay most of the taxes, are they doing the will of God through their taxes?

quote:Luke21:1-4 And he looked up, and saw the rich men casting their gifts into the treasury. And he saw also a certain poor widow casting in thither two mites. And he said, Of a truth I say unto you, that this poor widow hath cast in more than they all: For all these have of their abundance cast in unto the offerings of God: but she of her penury hath cast in all the living that she had.

It isn't about how much you give. It's about how much you hold back - and that doesn't just apply to cash.

An honest discussion is more of a peer review than a pep rally. My toughest critics here are the people who agree with me. -- ringo